4 ms·

Here is a specific example: Circumcision It has the features OP complains about. Content controlled by a small number of "guardians" who knows every Wikipedia r

Here is a specific example: Circumcision It has the features OP complains about. Content controlled by a small number of "guardians" who knows every Wikipedia rule and policy in existence and uses them to keep outsiders out. A shockingly biased tone that omits every dissenting source. The article's guardians call them "anti-circumcisionists" and in their view, the critics objects are as valid as 9/11 conspiracy theorists'. "Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa." "The highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision has no impact on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure." Mentioned in the first two paragraphs. The fact that many believe that male circumcision is a grave violation of boys' rights to body autonomy is not.

jacquesm 5y ago
I was asking the OP because I want to get an idea of what kind of articles they believe are evidence of the fact that Wikipedia is broken, not because I doubt that any such articles exist. Specifically to see what kind of angle they have. Once you report something like this to a forum like HN as being a serious enough problem that it warrants a discussion I think that party should bring their own evidence, because chances are they are just unable to push their own agenda on some pet subject. If I were to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is broken and I'd post it to HN I would make sure to bring ample evidence. That said, that article could certainly be improved on. I have my own pet peeves about Wikipedia and even about some articles, but I don't think it is 'structurally broken', that requires a different level of evidence.
- bjourne 5y ago
  I see your point but I'm not sure one can produce the kind of evidence you are requiring. My areas of expertise allows me to evaluate at most 100 Wikipedia articles on mostly technical subjects. But Wikipedia contains millions of articles so I can only judge the quality or whether an agenda is being pushed on less than 0.1% of all articles. For the remaining 99.9% I can't tell since I don't know everything about everything.
_Nat_ 5y ago
> The fact that many believe that male circumcision is a grave violation of boys' rights to body autonomy is not. For reference, how many people believe that? Like, is it a view held by 50% of the population, 10% of the population, or is it more of a niche view, or..? Because when we get down to stuff that <10% of the population believes, things get super-weird. --- Tried looking it up; appears to be a niche perspective. A significant minority of the population doesn't favor circumcision, but there doesn't seem to be much about folks having a huge problem with it. Also, it appears that, among men who were/weren't circumcised, it's more common for men who were circumcised to be happy about their parents' decision (from Questions 5 and 6 of [this survey [PDF]](http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ugf8jh0ufk/toplines_OPI_circumcision_20150202.pdf http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ugf8jh0ufk/to... )).
- bjourne 5y ago
  > Dutch doctors want politicians and human rights groups to speak out and discourage the practice of male circumcision in the Netherlands because they say it is a “painful and harmful ritual,” and a violation of children’s rights. > Between 10,000 and 15,000 boys are circumcised in the Netherlands each year, mostly for religious reasons and not always with an anesthetic, according to the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) which represents surgeons, pediatricians, general practitioners and urologists. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-circumcision-health-idUSTRE78M3R620110923 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-circumcision-health... You can find similar views expressed by many medical associations around the world (https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision/ https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-aga... https://www.thelocal.se/20090725/20900/ https://www.thelocal.se/20090725/20900/ https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-5142149 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-5142149) I believe the American Pediatrics Association is the only major one that has come out in favor of circumcision. Their statement is along the lines of "the benefits slightly outweigh the risks". Americans may be cool with genital cutting but in the rest of the world the procedure is very controversial.
  - _Nat_ 5y ago
    I appreciate that you're able to show that some people hold such beliefs, but the numbers I'm finding suggest that it's still less common than beliefs in, say, 9/11-conspiracy theories. Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate that you can show that there're advocacy groups in that arena. But there're groups who advocate 9/11 conspiracy-theories, aliens, anti-vaccination, flat-Earth, mysticism, etc., so the mere existence of advocacy groups doesn't seem like a distinction from such things. Instead, is there some sort of poll/survey -- non-American, if you prefer -- that demonstrates that a significant portion of some population holds such strong views against circumcision? To note it: If you want to get Wikipedia to change its presentation, presenting such evidence might help out. Because, it really does seem like you're advocating a niche belief; but, if you can demonstrate that it's held by a significant portion of people on Earth, then that might change stuff.

jacquesm 5y ago

I was asking the OP because I want to get an idea of what kind of articles they believe are evidence of the fact that Wikipedia is broken, not because I doubt that any such articles exist. Specifically to see what kind of angle they have. Once you report something like this to a forum like HN as being a serious enough problem that it warrants a discussion I think that party should bring their own evidence, because chances are they are just unable to push their own agenda on some pet subject. If I were to come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is broken and I'd post it to HN I would make sure to bring ample evidence. That said, that article could certainly be improved on. I have my own pet peeves about Wikipedia and even about some articles, but I don't think it is 'structurally broken', that requires a different level of evidence.

bjourne 5y ago
I see your point but I'm not sure one can produce the kind of evidence you are requiring. My areas of expertise allows me to evaluate at most 100 Wikipedia articles on mostly technical subjects. But Wikipedia contains millions of articles so I can only judge the quality or whether an agenda is being pushed on less than 0.1% of all articles. For the remaining 99.9% I can't tell since I don't know everything about everything.

_Nat_ 5y ago

> The fact that many believe that male circumcision is a grave violation of boys' rights to body autonomy is not. For reference, how many people believe that? Like, is it a view held by 50% of the population, 10% of the population, or is it more of a niche view, or..? Because when we get down to stuff that <10% of the population believes, things get super-weird. --- Tried looking it up; appears to be a niche perspective. A significant minority of the population doesn't favor circumcision, but there doesn't seem to be much about folks having a huge problem with it. Also, it appears that, among men who were/weren't circumcised, it's more common for men who were circumcised to be happy about their parents' decision (from Questions 5 and 6 of [this survey [PDF]](http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ugf8jh0ufk/toplines_OPI_circumcision_20150202.pdf http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ugf8jh0ufk/to... )).

bjourne 5y ago
> Dutch doctors want politicians and human rights groups to speak out and discourage the practice of male circumcision in the Netherlands because they say it is a “painful and harmful ritual,” and a violation of children’s rights. > Between 10,000 and 15,000 boys are circumcised in the Netherlands each year, mostly for religious reasons and not always with an anesthetic, according to the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) which represents surgeons, pediatricians, general practitioners and urologists. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-circumcision-health-idUSTRE78M3R620110923 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dutch-circumcision-health... You can find similar views expressed by many medical associations around the world (https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision/ https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-aga... https://www.thelocal.se/20090725/20900/ https://www.thelocal.se/20090725/20900/ https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-5142149 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-5142149) I believe the American Pediatrics Association is the only major one that has come out in favor of circumcision. Their statement is along the lines of "the benefits slightly outweigh the risks". Americans may be cool with genital cutting but in the rest of the world the procedure is very controversial.
- _Nat_ 5y ago
  I appreciate that you're able to show that some people hold such beliefs, but the numbers I'm finding suggest that it's still less common than beliefs in, say, 9/11-conspiracy theories. Don't get me wrong -- I appreciate that you can show that there're advocacy groups in that arena. But there're groups who advocate 9/11 conspiracy-theories, aliens, anti-vaccination, flat-Earth, mysticism, etc., so the mere existence of advocacy groups doesn't seem like a distinction from such things. Instead, is there some sort of poll/survey -- non-American, if you prefer -- that demonstrates that a significant portion of some population holds such strong views against circumcision? To note it: If you want to get Wikipedia to change its presentation, presenting such evidence might help out. Because, it really does seem like you're advocating a niche belief; but, if you can demonstrate that it's held by a significant portion of people on Earth, then that might change stuff.